Comments on: Senator Says State Sponsor of Sept 11th

Senator Says State Sponsor of Sept 11th

cell divide — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:06:38 -0800

On PBS last week, Senator Bob Graham said that there is "evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States," but that "It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today." Do you trust the government to keep the right informatin classified, or do we need to know?

By: nofundy

nofundy — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:43:13 -0800

Do you trust the government to keep the right informatin classified, or do we need to know? No and yes. I still want to see the Cheney energy bill papers.

By: Mars Saxman

Mars Saxman — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:44:21 -0800

Well, it wouldn't be the first time government officials have told lies which can't be exposed until the potential force of the revelation has long since withered. Perhaps someone more optimistic than I could believe that official deception of the sort we now read about in history books ended with the fall of the Iron Curtain, but I do not find "national security" a particularly convincing shield these days. No, of course I don't trust the government. If they want to convince me their decisions are sensible, they can lay out all of their data so I can see it. If they aren't willing to do that, they can deal with my disapproval. Clearly, my disapproval doesn't mean all that much.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:56:08 -0800

Yes, I trust the government to keep the right information classified, and I also "trust" them to keep the "wrong" information classified along with it. In other words, I doubt like hell they'll inadvertently declassify anything they obviously shouldn't -- even as they keep classfied some stuff that's merely inconvenient or embarrassing but not truly sensitive to national security.

By: cell divide

cell divide — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:02:57 -0800

My thought was that they don't want it to distract people from Iraq, but they might bring the information out (presuming it damns, say, Saudi Arabia) after the war and use it as pretext for the next military/diplomatic action.

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:56:12 -0800

I trust the government as an institution, but if we, as an educated public, continue to elect parties instead of candidates, then any faith in the system will evaporate. Clinton had shady dealings; Bush has shady dealings. I think that instead of bitching about those currently in power, we should understand why they were elected in the first place.

By: RobbieFal

RobbieFal — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:29:03 -0800

If this government involved was Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or any nation we dislike.. why would we keep it under lock for 20 years? it's probably some ally nation of ours.. mmm.. either Saudi Arabia or Israel

By: RokkitNite

RokkitNite — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:14:01 -0800

Or... one can talk about hypothetical 'foreign governments' and let le peuple draw their own, paranoid conclusions. Result - fuel on the hawk's fire without a shred of evidence.

By: haqspan

haqspan — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:39:52 -0800

I would trust the government to release things but they have a nasty habit of continual postponement. For example, all the Kennedy assassinations files won't be released until 2017, a full 54(!) years after the man died. And even then, that might not be enough: The Act requires that all assassination-related records be opened by 2017, with the exception of documents certified for continued postponement by the President. JFK Assassination Records

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:41:47 -0800

I wouldn't worry too much about those JFK assassination records. Anything worthwhile and revelatory in there has already been "sanitized" anyway. Might as well go on believing a loser with a crummy bolt-action rifle got three really good shots off in five and a half seconds.

By: GrooveJedi

GrooveJedi — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:00:54 -0800

The government in question is probably Israel and there is ample information on the internet to support this. Unfortunately, the good Senator cannot mention the country by name or he'll be out of a job by monday.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:01:46 -0800

In this WaPo article from last week, Graham specifically said that there is classified information connecting Saudi Arabia to U.S.-based terrorists. He again complained about the information possibly not being declassified for 20-30 years. I assume he had the Saudis in mind in his NewsHour interview. Mark Steyn recently wrote a good column on Bush and the Saudis. The complete lack of outrage by the American public over Bush's kissing Saudi ass in the face of this kind of news never ceases to amaze me. If Gore were president and acting this way, I have no doubt most Republicans would be accussing him of treason.

By: stonerose

stonerose — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:40:38 -0800

Wow, GrooveJedi. Information on the internet. Damn. You got me.

By: eddydamascene

eddydamascene — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:42:29 -0800

The government in question is probably Israel and there is ample information on the internet to support this. There is ample information on the internet to support a lot of things, many of them patently stupid.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:18:59 -0800

I have no doubt most Republicans would be accussing him of treason. Republican pundits and politicians, I meant to say. Namely the same bunch who went after Clinton over Monica.

By: chaz

chaz — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 23:35:12 -0800

It is probably Saudi Arabia, and after Bush has Iraq's oil, he can release the info, and can end the business deals.

By: GrooveJedi

GrooveJedi — Mon, 23 Dec 2002 04:15:53 -0800

Attack me and ignore the facts all you want. Keep getting your news from CNN and the NY Times. :)